Former Siemens boss appointed Great British Energy interim chief executive
A former chief of energy giant Siemens has been appointed interim chief executive of the Government's flagship Great British Energy company.
Dan McGrail, the current chief executive of trade association RenewableUK, will work for the new publicly-owned clean energy company from its Aberdeen headquarters.
He will take up his post in March on an initial six-month contract on secondment from RenewableUK, which supports businesses developing wind, wave, tidal, storage and green hydrogen projects in the UK.
Mr McGrail, who was previously chief executive of Siemens Engines and managing director of Siemens Power Generation, will 'draw on his wealth of experience in clean energy' to help 'rapidly scale up the new company so it can start delivering as quickly as possible', the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said.
The department said recruitment for the permanent chief executive will also begin shortly.
GB Energy was pitched as a key part of Labour's clean energy strategy during last year's general election.
The public body will invest in onshore and offshore wind and other projects to help speed up private investment in the sector, and has been promised £8.3 billion of public money over the next five years.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said: 'With the appointment of Dan McGrail as interim CEO, we now have a fantastic team in place to lead Great British Energy and start delivering on our plan for change.
'Great British Energy is at the heart of our clean power mission, and will support thousands of well-paid jobs, drive growth and investment into our communities and deliver energy security for the British people.'
Mr McGrail said: 'Homegrown, affordable clean power has never been more important and it's a privilege to take up the role of interim CEO of Great British Energy at such a pivotal moment.
'Together with the talented leadership team, I'm excited to hit the ground running to scale up the company and work with industry to unleash billions of investment in clean energy, helping to grow new industries at scale with job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of people, as well as helping the Government achieve its clean power targets.'
It was announced in December that a £1.6 million centre for training wind farm workers would open in Aberdeen, and GB Energy would be based there.
The Great British Energy Bill is currently going through the House of Lords and is at the committee stage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Over 12,000 Harvard alums lend weight to court battle with Trump in new filing
More than 12,000 Harvard University alumni have signed onto a legal document in support of the university's lawsuit against the Trump administration. The document, known as an amicus brief, hasn't been officially accepted by the court as of 2 p.m. Monday. It is a reaction to the federal government pulling or freezing nearly $3 billion in funding to the university. 'As alumni, we are deeply alarmed by the Government's reckless and unlawful attempts to assert control over the core functions of Harvard and its fellow institutions of higher education. Without due process or any recognizable basis in law — and with complete disregard for the freedoms the Constitution secures and the constraints it imposes — the Government has embarked on a campaign to deploy every power at its disposal to damage Harvard,' the brief reads. The 12,000 alumni range from being a part of the Class of 1950 all the way through the Class of 2025. Crimson Courage, a community of Harvard alumni whose mission is to stand up for academic freedom, kicked off the campaign for signatures. Several other individuals and groups have or aim to submit court documents in support of Harvard's lawsuit. Among them have been two dozen universities, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Council on Education, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — also known as FIRE — and Columbia Alumni for Academic Freedom, according to court filings. Read more: 'We are not just fighting for Harvard': For alums, this year feels different 'The Government's escalating attacks — and this case — are about much more than funding. The Government strikes at the very core of Harvard: the longstanding practices and values of openness, free inquiry, and mutual respect, and its founding commitment to veritas — the quest for truth above all,' the brief said. 'The Government's end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms. As alumni, we attest that Harvard's true greatness resides in the ways we share these values and exercise these freedoms, which have long shaped how we understand and connect with one another, and how we anchor our continuing efforts to make a difference in service to the world,' it states. All Ivy League schools are supporting Harvard lawsuit — except these 2 Embassies directed to resume processing Harvard University student visas 'We are not just fighting for Harvard': For alums, this year feels different What a monk, a librarian and a dentist have to do with Harvard's fight with Trump Judge blocks Trump admin from banning Harvard international students from entering US Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Private sector wages should not be the business of Government
For far too long, British politicians have created laws and systems that outsource decisions to the courts. All of this has been done with the best intentions, but too little consideration has been given to the unintended consequences, and the outcomes have been perverse. Thanks to a spate of absurd rulings, including the Albanian criminal allowed to stay in the UK partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets, many are aware of the impact on efforts to control our borders. But the problem is much broader, impacting everything from planning to energy. Increasingly, tribunal judgments are even telling businesses what they should pay their workers. If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. All jobs are different; all people are different too. In theory, setting pay is hard, because the pros and cons of different roles depend on individual preferences. In practice it's easy. You don't have to sit down and work out a weighted aggregate of a job's different pros and cons to different people; the market does that for you. You can start hiring, and you'll find out pretty quickly how much you need to pay to fill a role. This is so obvious that it almost isn't worth saying. But it's not what our laws say. The Equality Act, passed in 2010, mandates 'equal pay for equal work', doubling down on the Equal Pay Act of 1970. But what is 'equal work'? According to the Equality Act, it isn't where two people do the same job. It's not even where two people do similar jobs. In fact, the Equality Act says, the only way to tell if two jobs are 'equal' is to conduct a 'job evaluation study'. Rather than letting the job market determine fair pay, bureaucrats and judges use a host of arbitrary criteria to decide what a role is worth. What does that look like in practice? Last August, a six-year case concluded against the retailer Next. The company was sued by three women, current and former workers, who insisted that store staff (mostly women) should be paid as much as warehouse workers (slight majority male). Any of the store staff could have moved to the warehouse if they wanted more money. In fact, Next were desperate for them to – the company had a recruitment drive for the warehouse among store employees. But very few people wanted those roles because working on the shop floor was pleasant and working in the warehouse was not. One of the women who brought the case admitted that she would only have considered moving to the warehouse for 'a lot more money.' Incredibly, Next lost. The court decided the two roles should be paid the same. The same thing is happening to Asda. And Birmingham council was effectively bankrupted by an equal pay claim brought by (mostly female) cleaners complaining they weren't paid as much as the (mostly male) binmen. We should be grateful anyone is willing to do work that's backbreaking, dirty or dangerous. They deserve to be paid fairly; often more than people who don't want to do that. But now bureaucrats have come in to fix what isn't broken and insist that what is fair is actually unfair. This undermines our economy and it needs to stop. Katie Lam is the Conservative MP for Weald of Kent Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The benefits system is out of control
The decision to axe the winter fuel payment for most pensioners must rank among the most ill-judged policies introduced by a Chancellor in recent times, and there is strong competition for that accolade. Rachel Reeves made the decision shortly after taking office because she said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion 'black hole' she had discovered in the nation's finances. Her argument might have had some merit had she not then blown much of the savings on pay rises for train drivers and public sector workers. The juxtaposition of help for Labour's union allies while pensioners shivered rapidly became toxic for the Government, generating one of the fastest reversals of support for any new administration. In the end, with Reform advancing in the polls – and pledging to restore the payment – Sir Keir Starmer ordered a screeching U-turn which the Government maintains is possible because the economy is doing so well, as if anyone believes that. Now, instead of around 1.5 million older people on pensioner credit receiving the payment, it will be paid to about nine million OAPs with an income below £35,000. Why this figure has been chosen is as much a mystery as other 'cliff edge' sums that abound in our overly complex tax and benefit system. Indeed, this U-turn just makes it even more convoluted. Everyone will receive the payment but it will then be clawed back from an estimated two million people earning more than the £35,000 threshold via PAYE or a tax return. In other words, yet more red tape will be imposed to make a quarter of pensioners return an allowance that began life in 1997 as a universal benefit. Although many better-off pensioners often said they did not need the money, and many gave it to charity every Christmas, at least it was straightforward. To some extent so was limiting it to people on pensioner credit, since that is already linked to income. But what is now proposed is a dog's breakfast, with opt-outs and other implications still to be resolved. Tomorrow, Ms Reeves will unveil her spending plans for the next four years. She is being urged to get a grip on the rapidly expanding benefits budget; but if this experience is to be our guide, there is little chance that it will ever be reined in. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
